Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness[+] and spirit to the modes[+] of neutrality[*], decency, respectfulness, wisdom[*], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we[*] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue the “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment.
In short, the answer is: because it vowed to be neutral in legal documents such as its Declaration of Independence in 1991 and treaties with Russia (which would have guarantee it territorial integrity if the corrupt, bribed-by-NATO politicians did not start to take steps to join NATO in 2008), as well as it vowed not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of its neighbor Russia by signingthe OSCE Charter in 1999. Also, because NATO is hostile to Russia and Ukraine should not ally with the enemies of its fellow Eastern Slav neighbors. But there is much more to it, thus make sure to read about it all here.
In April 2025, the US President’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg stated[+]: “We have stated very clearly: NATO is not up for discussion. Ukraine will not become part of NATO.”
In October 2024, NATO Chief Rutte said[+] during his Kyiv visit: “Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever, Mark Rutte says during Kyiv visit.” But just a few months later, with Trump running the show, Rutte that Ukraine's accession to the Alliance is no longer being considered. He was asked by Bloomberg[+] whether Trump had removed Ukraine’s NATO bid from the negotiating table and he responded “Yes.” Kyiv state-sponsored media reported[+][+][+] that it means “Issue of Ukraine's accession to NATO removed from negotiating table.” Other countries’ media also interpreted[+] it that “NATO chief confirms Ukraine’s membership no longer on the agenda.”
If this topic is really already settled, there would be no need to discuss it any further, nonetheless it must be explained why it came to that and why it is a right decision.
NATO is a military alliance against Russia. It's all that it ever was, it's all that will ever be.
It is indecent to join a military alliance that is antagonistic towards one's own kinfolk. Ukrainians are Eastern Slavs like Russians and Belarusians, belonging to the same tribe, and as such, they should side with them rather than with their enemies. Unfortunately, Ukrainian politicians and mass media representatives are too corrupt, which is why they easily accepted bribes from NATO leaders to side with them against Russia since 2013, which is highly immoral. No wonder ethnic Russians and Russophiles protested since then, for which they were labeled as terrorists and massacred since April 2014[»], no wonder, they sought protection from Russia and secession from Ukraine.
When it comes to Russian demand on Ukraine’s neutrality, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky already conceded this[+][+] in March 2022 but then backed off after being pressured by Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, as reported by Prime Minister Bennett[+][+][+][»][»], Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu[+], former German Chancellor Schröder[+][+], the Ukrainian[+][+][»][»][+»][+][+] and Russian[+][+] delegations, who were at peace talks in March/April 2022, and Western media[+][+][+]. The Ukrainian delegation[+][+][»][»] already signed the draft[+][+][+][+][+][+][+][+][»] (Istanbul agreement on permanent neutrality and security guarantees for Ukraine – Ukraine's ten-point plan “Istanbul Communiqué”[+]) stating that Ukraine would enshrine “permanent neutrality” in its Constitution (Russia, the US, UK, China, and France were listed as guarantors) but then Zelensky changed his mind due to pressure from the UK and the US, thus Russia lost all trust in the Kyiv promises, especially because Kyiv didn't also honor the previous two Minsk agreements[+]. From the Kremlin's perspective, there’s no point in negotiating this issue with the current Kyiv regime1 as it keeps violating all agreements it signs and acts as a Western puppet, not making sovereign decisions on its own.
This could have been resolved by NATO promising in writing this time that it would not expand to countries bordering Russia and withdrawing membership to all states bordering Russia but NATO has been unwilling to do so[+], and, as if disrespecting Russia's security concerns was not enough, Biden and his NATO pals have been doubling down with intruding, overstepping the boundaries (further expanding to Russian borders, encircling Russia with adding Finland and de facto including Ukraine), playing with fire, risking disaster, talking down on Russia's President, and using all kinds of disrespectful rhetoric, intimidation, "finger-wagging", and threats[+][+][+]. Just like all other strong leaders, Putin wouldn't allow someone like Biden and his followers to treat him that way, let alone bow to him.
Here's proof[»] of all proofs that NATO could have prevented the war by ending its expansion and abiding by the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act[+]. In that video, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that Russia launched its special military operation in Ukraine to prevent NATO expansionism because he, in the name of NATO, said “no” to deploying NATO military bases across Russian borders.
Have a look at this hilarious 3-minute video compilation[»][»] about mass denial in the mass media with all the “experts” getting the memo that they should repeat "Not About NATO" | "Never About NATO" | "Nothing to Do With NATO" despite NATO chief clearly saying that the precondition for Russia not attacking Ukraine was all about NATO and Russians themselves claiming it (who else knows better than them why they did it?!).
As the video[»] with Davyd Arakhamia (the head of Zelensky's political party and of Ukrainian delegation during peace talks in March-April 2022) proves, Putin was ready to end the war[»] in the first weeks upon launching his SMO under one main condition: Ukraine had to enshrine “permanent neutrality” in its Constitution, nothing much else.
President Putin claimed[+] on 24 February 2022 that NATO ‘forced’ him to invade Ukraine by rejecting security demands. He was referring to two treaties, one with the US[+]and the other with NATO[+], which Putin presented on 17 December 2021. In light of all the threatening activity on its border, Russia demanded that the West pledges not to threaten Russia's borders by offering membership to Ukraine or by arming and placing missiles in Ukraine, as well as the removal of the Romanian missile system and the withdrawal of NATO troop deployments from Eastern Europe. Putin stated at that time, "You are on our doorstep. We cannot back down." Putin promised a “technical-military” response if the NATO powers did not stop their offensive actions. NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg rejected them out of hand, which was a major provocation! Putin said the military action was a “forced measure” that stemmed from rising security risks for Russia.
It says a lot about NATO that it could not find anyone better than Jens Stoltenberg[+] to represent them, as they had to extend his term as General Secretary of NATO from 2014-2024. There is plenty evidence proving how unworthy he was of that position, which suggests he was nothing but a puppet, but perhaps this one evidence[»] suffice and one needs no more to realize his cognitive dysfunction. The issue is not how clearly mentally challenged he is but how such person is allowed to head a military organization that is responsible for deaths of millions of innocent people and no one holds him accountable or his puppet-masters. He was NATO secretary general since 2014 and during his tenure, NATO has bombed and invaded many countries (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia...) as well as planned, funded, and orchestrated many other proxy wars like the one in Ukraine.
And the new General Secretary of NATO Mark Rutte is no better and perhaps even much worse; time will tell but this Klaus Schwab's golden boy[+][+](participant of WEF “Young Global Leaders” program[+][+]) is a failed former Dutch Prime Minister who had to resign[+] as Netherlands PM after the collapse of his government in July 2023 and the shocking new election results, which was the biggest middle finger[+][+]imaginable to Rutte from his people. It just goes to show that in the West, the worse you are to your own folk, the higher you rank in NATO, because Stoltenberg was also a failed Prime Minister in Norway before becoming NATO chief in 2014 (in 2013, he lost the election; in 2012, he was under pressure to resign over report on the killing spree by Breivik[+]).
Whether political naiveté, recklessness, incessant appetite for foreign aid, or all of the above, Ukraine’s tenacious insistence on NATO membership, even in the face of a looming Russian invasion, instigated a war that could easily be avoided. It was a blunder of historic magnitude. As a participant[+] of OSCE Summits, Ukraine signed the Charter for European Security Organization for Security and Co-operationin 1999[+] and reconfirmed in December 2010[+]: They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. However, Ukraine violated that commitment by seeking to join NATO so as to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of its neighbor Russia.As it turns out, either OSCE Charter is either just a worthless scrap of paper, not worth the paper it is written on, or Ukraine is in violation of international law for which it should be held accountable. So, what are the consequences of violating OSCE Charter and why is Ukraine not held accountable? If signed commitments are not legally binding and if OSCE is guilty of double standards, it appears to be a sham organization that like UN is hijacked by NATO to promote the interests of the United States. The OSCE mandate in Ukraine expired on 31 March 2022, due to substantiated objections2[+][+] by Russia.
Ukrainian President US-puppet3 Yushchenko applied to join NATO in 2008 but two years later in June 2010, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill proposed by the new President Yanukovych revoking the application to join NATO[+]. Ever since until 2022, the majority of Ukrainian public was against[+][+][+] joining NATO nevertheless, in June 2017, Ukrainian parliament passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority[+], in February 2019, parliament amended[+][+] the Constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objective as joining the NATO,and on 30 September 2022 (the day when Russia proclaimed the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, following referendums[+] that showed an overwhelming support – e.g. in Zaporizhzhia, 93.11% of voters voted in favor of joining Russia, which on the basis of Kosovo independence precedent[+] in international law should apply to all other oppressed folks who want to separate), Zelensky submitted[»] the application to join NATO without asking the public, without a referendum. A few days later, on 4 October 2022, disregarding the will of people again, Zelensky signed a decree[+][+] stating that it is illegal to negotiate peace with Russia.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)[+] is an American-led military alliance explicitly created to counter the Soviet Union[+][+] (Russia is what is left of the Soviet Union now and as such considered a rival in the current geo-political framework). It is an intergovernmental military alliance between 32 member states – 30 European and two North American (the US and Canada). All member states together cover an area of 24.93 million km² with about 957 million people[+]. For comparison, the Russian Federation covers an area of 17 million km² with just around 144 million people[+]. In other words, NATO has almost seven times more people to draw forces and resources from as NATO is superior to Russia also in terms of military equipment and budget.
However, open warfare often comes down to far more than the manpower and inventories that each side of the conflict can call upon. Besides a modern war being a hybrid war, where military warfare is just one of many types of warfare (economic warfare – sanctions, (dis)information warfare, cognitive warfare[+][»], psychological warfare[+][+], lawfare[+]4, cyber-attacks, geo-political engagement, communication5, etc.), military experts play up intelligence, strategy, tactics, logistics, fighting spirit, and the like, whereby history experts, religious leaders, sages, astronomers, and astrologers point out some other factors.
If you ask us, we believe that the winners are always those with a higher collective consciousness level6, as verified by the Consciousness Theorem[+] (the level of collective consciousness determines the level of collective achievement).God is in control and the winners are always those who are closer to God (have a higher level of consciousness).
Also, we should not overlook the fact that if it ever came to a full-scale war between NATO and Russia, it might not be just a case of a David vs Goliath fight, as there is a high chance that some other nations may join Russia as well as NATO. Russia has more allies than NATO because NATO has earned a very bad reputation in the rest of the world due to decades of invasions, regime changes, meddling, sanctions, coercion, exploitation, neocolonialism, etc.
When Putin outlined the main reasons for pre-emptively conducting a military intervention in Ukraine in 2022, he stated one of them was to forestall NATO’s encroachment upon Russia’s security interests by safeguarding Ukraine’s status as a neutral country, including demilitarizing and denazifying it. He said[+], “We will certainly ensure the security of Russia and our people and will never allow Ukraine to be a bridgehead for aggressive actions against our country”.
Given that NATO and Russia are military rivals, the point Russia is making with this demand is for the NATO members not to violate the commitments that they made, both orally and legally binding in writing, especially the Charter for European Security Organization for Security and Co-operation[+] they signed in OSCE Summit in 1999 and reconfirmed in the 2010 OSCE Summit[+]: They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States, including Russia. Strengthening of Ukrainian security since 2014 with NATO states massively militarizing Ukraine to fight Russia[»][+][»][»] and NATO's expansions are all at the expense of Russian security, which is a huge violation of that treaty and international law.
"We should find a way to ensure the security of all participants: Ukraine, European countries, and Russia. It is possible to do only through a serious, thoughtful attitude to documents* proposed by us.” – Vladimir Putin[»]
*on 17 December 2021, President Putin presented two treaties to be signed, one with the US[+]and the other with NATO[+], the essence of which is that the West pledges not to threaten Russia's borders by offering membership to Ukraine or by arming and placing missiles in Ukraine. The US and NATO authorities blatantly rejected it refusing to consider Russian security concerns, which is why Kremlin had no choice but to force them to consider it. Whether ‘offense is the best defense’ after many years of ineffective diplomatic efforts and being constantly provoked, is debatable.
Russian authorities have indicated that they seek contraction of NATO to pre-1997 lines (when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed)or the status of 1991 (when NATO leaders promised “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east”[+pg.6])
Russia basically wants NATO to hit the undo button😊.
In December 2021 (before the launch of Russia's SMO), Russia demanded[+] from NATO to roll back almost a quarter-century of expansion by withdrawing forces from Eastern Europe and halting further growth. This was rejected[+] but now that NATO is in a weaker position and Russia in stronger, Russia might insist on it in the context of eventual peace talks regarding the war in Ukraine.
In 1997, Russia and NATO signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation[+], under which the alliance pledged to "carry out its collective defense and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces." However, NATO has violated it by permanent stationing of substantial combat forces in new member states. NATO rejects that claim as their definition of "substantial combat forces" is different from Russia's. Since 2014, NATO has deployed an additional substantial number of more than 4.500 troops to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland, which they prefer to call rotational rather than permanent, even though substantial combat forces are there permanently.
Russia also claims that NATO military exercises such as in the Black Sea[+][+], annual Operation Atlantic Resolve[+] in Eastern Europe, and Spring Storm drills every year in Estonia[+][+][+] also violate a key part of the Russia-NATO Founding Act, as NATO pledgednot to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members.
NATO also pledged[+] to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation as well as committed to building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe but, it has broken those commitments by 1) relentlessly expanding to the Russian borders and so posing threats to Russia's security, 2) destabilizing the security situation in Europe by bombarding other countries (such as former Yugoslavia as well as Libya and Syria) causing a huge influx of refugees, as well as by 3) orchestrating and funding regime changes in Eastern Europe, including countries across Russia’s borders, 4) taking Kosovo from Serbia in 2008 – infringing on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia by recognizing Kosovo's independence, 5) promising membership to Ukraine and Georgia in April 2008 despite Russia's strong disapproval, 6) arming Ukraine to harm Russia since 2014, and 7) deploying both long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in Europe posing a threat to Russia's security. Russia, on the other hand, honored it by not threatening or using force against NATO Allies.
With a peaceful annexation of Crimea, after Crimeans declared independence from Ukraine, Russia has prevented a war there, unlike in Donbas (if Russia had also annexed Donbas in 2014, there would have been no war there either). NATO also supported (trained, armed, and funded) militants in eastern Ukraine who had been killing the Russians there for eight years. Russia, on the other hand, was actively participating in peacekeeping operations in support of Russians living in Ukraine who were evidently being discriminated against, killed, and terrorized.
Russians are not demanding that countries leave NATO but they demand the pullout of the military contingent, bases, and strategic weapons stationed on the territories of the countries that joined NATO since 1997, which threaten Russia's security.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has underscored that strengthening NATO’s military potential near Russia’s borders poses a national security threat. Understandably, Russia feels threatened by NATO's buildup of intimidating military bases across its borders. It seems Ukraine and NATO are joined at the hip for the foreseeable future, and neither is willing to accept Ukrainian neutrality, which is why Russia was forced to use force to demilitarize Ukraine. The authorities of the Russian Federation cannot allow a situation in which the NATO armed forces would be located at its borders, just as the US didn't allow Russian missiles in Cuba in 1962[+]. Putin wants Ukraine to remain neutral and not become a platform for attack against Russia, similar to how the US viewed Cuba in 1962. To prevent clashes between those two military superpowers, Ukraine needs to remain a neutral buffer zone. End of discussion. Russia will not compromise on that point.
“We have surrounded Russia with missiles and military bases, something that we would never tolerate.”– Robert F. Kennedy
NATO was established in 1949 with 12 countries, in the aftermath of World War II to prevent World War III. However, what NATO is doing in recent years (and the US in decades) is quite the opposite of preventing WWIII – NATO's own expansionism[ꚛ][ꚛ], aggression, invasions, attempts to change regimes (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria…), and provocations (Russia, China, Middle East) is provoking the WW III.
NATO may have started out as a defensive alliance with an honorable goal of preventing WWIII but being led by the US that pushes its world domination agenda, NATO descended into a modern form of colonialism a.k.a. neocolonialism conducting international relations based on disrespect and haughtiness, bombing countries with impunity.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (a.k.a. diplomatic rockstar[»]) accused[+][+] the West of attempting to preserve its hegemony and dress it up as a “rules-based order”[»] but he declared that multipolarity would ultimately prevail.
So-called “rules-based order” is nothing but the “Law of the Jungle” that has created the series of endless wars and regional conflicts. This survival of the fittest doctrine is intended to run outdated unipolar hegemony by hook and crook. More than 60 independent and sovereign states were destroyed directly and indirectly by Washington interference to usher the unipolar World Order with Western allies. America has not only executed “law of the jungle” to run world affairs unilaterally but now to save Washington power-centric hegemony, it is using third degree methods to keep control over world nations. But this hawkish rhetoric has fueled chaos all-around the world from Africa to Asia. American attempts to bring regime change in different countries around the globe to achieve its geopolitical objectives through color revolutions to install puppet regimes have been thwarted by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin, who are putting an End to Law of the Jungle[+].
Lavrov also said that NATO is suffering from delusions of grandeur and alleged that NATO’s appetite for spreading its influence globally was causing destabilization outside of the North Atlantic region.
To contain China's political and economic growth influence so as to preserve the West’s hegemony, NATO made plans to build up military infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, which is why representatives of those nations were invited to the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius.
"NATO exists to promote a cold war with Russia." – Jeremy Corbyn (Member of UK Parliament)
This is because NATO can’t exist without an enemy. Otherwise, it would lose all meaning and reason for existence, a source for war profiteers.
“NATO needs enemies so it can justify its existence.” – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko. The US military-industrial complex that makes huge profits off NATO's existence needs to perpetuate wars across the globe. In Europe, Russia is the only candidate to pose as an enemy and so justify all the military expenditures that mostly end up in the pockets of the American military-industrial complex to serve American interests (the US invades or militarily threatens many national leaders to pressure them to exploit their natural resources and open markets for US products).
In June 2023, The Telegraph asked the question[+]: "if Ukraine with the might of the Atlantic alliance at its back cannot prevail against Russian aggression, then what is the point of NATO?" The whole purpose of NATO is to make money for American military industrial complex so that the US government can use those resources (that foolish NATO members pay for) to intimidate other countries of the world so as to rule over them in a neocolonialistic manner, plundering their natural resources, including bribing the corrupt local officials to sell the country's valuable resources at the rock-bottom prices, and imposing expensive American products onto them (cheap imports + expensive exports = US prosperity). NATO is the mechanism by which the US governs the entire West so as to rule the world. For the US to be able to get Europe and Canada to pay for NATO membership (buy expensive American arms) and American troops in their countries, they need to fearmonger them with a threat from an enemy, which is why the US promote Russophobia by any means possible. The US needs Russia to be an enemy so that NATO countries keep financing American wars[+]to maintain American hegemony in the world.
As it says on the NATO website[+], the Alliance’s creation served the purpose of deterring Soviet expansionism. If Soviet or now Russian expansionism is such a bad thing that there was a need to create an alliance to prevent that, , according to the same logic, NATO's expansionism should be then seen as equally bad but obviously, NATO is dishonorably applying double standards. Well, this is how Russia, plausibly, sees it but NATO officials with their double standards and exceptionalism do not see it that way, which is why we have this huge conflict between NATO and Russia. To be fair, just like NATO, Russia has every right to form a military alliance of its own to deter NATO expansionism[ꚛ]. Through NATO expansion, the US is entering Russia's security space, backing Russia into a corner. Until 2022, Russia has tried to deter it diplomatically, which says a lot about the pacifistic nature of Russia. In 2022, Russia ran out of options, and after NATO-backed Ukraine killed more than 13.000[+] Russians, Russia took up arms.
NATO expansionism vs. Russia expansionism: Since WWII, Russia has not expanded at all, whereas NATO has been doing it all the time while condemning Russia for “imperialism”, which is ludicrous! 74 years of NATO expansion is nicely presented in this one-minute video[»][»].
NATO has not only expanded to Russian borders but also increased its contingent[+] on the western borders of Russia which is a breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Russia has expressed its terms for ending the war on various occasions and one of the main demands is that Ukraine stays neutral, meaning that it doesn't join the anti-Russian NATO military alliance. NATO only exists to oppose Russia, to diminish its power and influence in Europe (mostly because Russia's multipolarity[+] and conservative, spiritual values are seen as threats to the Western hegemony, globalism, cultural homogenization[+], and neo-conservative[+], ultraliberal, capitalistic values). NATO has only one adversary – Russia. NATO's expansion by militarizing the nations across Russian borders is seen by many analysts as destabilizing the whole region, which is why NATO needs to be stopped, one way or another, to destabilize Europe.
Even before starting its SMO7[+] in Ukraine, Russia demanded as a precondition for not launching an intervention in Ukraine that America and NATO would agree not to place any missiles so near the Kremlin. NATO refused as they insisted on their right to place American nuclear missiles in Ukraine when Ukraine joins NATO[+]. Allegedly, Russia has no right concerning itself with whether or not America will be able to place its nuclear missiles 317 miles away from the Kremlin. But if Russia would place its nuclear missiles 317 miles away from the White House, there would be surely another missile crisis like the Cuban one in 1962[+] – obvious double standards from NATO and as such logically unacceptable by Russia, thus Russians did what they had to do to prevent it.
If NATO had the right to invade Iraq[+] (2003–2011) for the alleged reason of harboring weapons of mass destruction, then for the same reason, Russia would have the right to invade any (even NATO) country that has or intends to have WMD8, too, especially those on its borders, such as Ukraine that since early 2021 has had intention[+][+] to acquire nuclear weapons. Unlike in Iraq, where the allegations were unfounded, NATO’s states do not hide they harbor such weapons. As of 2023, NATO states with WMD are the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey[+].
While on the topic of WMD, the US has deployed nuclear weapons in several European countries but US President Biden criticized[+] that Russia’s doing the same only in one country (Belarus) was “absolutely irresponsible” and US Senator Graham said[+][»] it was “worrying and provocative” – yet another of countless double standard cases of the patronizing and hypocrite US ruling class, so, no wonder Russia and most of the world do no respect the US. American exceptionalism[+] is not acceptable. Global Majority[+] is not appreciating the US mantra[»]“rules for thee and not for me”[+][+].
NATO states are orchestrating yet another attempt at forceful, undemocratic regime change[+] in Belarus by training Belarussian paramilitaries in Poland to overthrow Russia’s ally Lukashenko’s government, as reported even by The Times[+], and Belarus and Russia should just take it without making any threats of their own – that is NATO leaders’ irrational thinking.
Russia was already offended when Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, which share a border with Russia, joined NATO in 2004 (Poland in 1999) and set up NATO military bases there with rockets pointing at Russia (despite the fact that Russia never posed any threat to those countries regardless of what NATO made them believe in spreading conspiracy theories about Putin) but didn't do anything about it. Ukraine is different and a “red line” for Russia for at least four main reasons:
Ukraine had around 8 million Russians living in the East and South of Ukraine who didn't want to join the anti-Russian NATO alliance – but they were given no power to decide because they were an ethnic minority there. Since they mostly live in the East, near the Russian border, they would have been forced to allow anti-Russian American and NATO troops to be stationed near their homes, which was, of course, unacceptable.
Russia to NATO: 'Youhave some nerve!' – Putin on NATO's expansion into historical Russian territories with Russian-speaking population.[»]
Ukraine's border with Russia is much larger than that of the Baltic states and Poland combined, which means it would present much more danger, especially after an anti-Russian US-puppet regime was instated (first after the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004/2005 and then after the Maidan Revolution in Feb 2014)
Ukraine's border (Sumy region) is closer to Moscow than the nearest border to the Baltic states, which means it would present a greater danger to the Russian capital. It has the nearest of all foreign borders to Moscow, only 500 km (317 miles) or 5 minutes of missile-flying time away from Russia’s central command in The Kremlin. If Ukraine were to join NATO and then request and receive from America a nuclear missile to be placed there, that would be as if Russia were to place a nuclear-warheaded missile in Albany NY, 310 miles away from America’s central command in Washington DC. Just as Washington would not allow Russia to do such a thing (as it didn’t allow it in Cuba, too), logically, Moscow doesn't allow it either, thus any American objection is a severe case of double standards, especially given the Cuban missile crisis[+] in 1962.
If Ukraine joins NATO, this would open the way for many other nations on Russian borders (Georgia, Kazakhstan…) to do the same as the West would continue to spread Russophobia[+] to entice other nations to join. The US needs more manpower and money from new NATO members to fuel their war machine used to serve American interests.
One of Russia’s “red lines”[+] it had stated as a precondition for not launching an intervention in Ukraine was that America and NATO would agree not to place any missiles so near the Kremlin. America and its NATO anti-Russian military alliance refused even to negotiate about that, as they insisted on their right to place American nuclear missiles in Ukraine when Ukraine joins NATO[+]. This refusal was the main reason why two months later Russia started SMO in Ukraine – to make sure Ukraine doesn't join NATO by creating a ‘frozen conflict’ that prevents NATO from admitting Ukraine[+], as the alliance cannot admit countries that don’t control all their borders or are in an on-going territorial dispute[+] (e.g. Cyprus dispute[+][+]). As long as Ukraine is in a military conflict with another country, according to restrictions enshrined in NATO's Alliance’s founding document – the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO membership is not open to any such state that threatens the security of the North Atlantic area, which Ukraine undoubtedly does due to open conflict with NATO's rival Russia.
NATO seeks to avoid the sort of situation in which a country might join and then immediately present NATO allies with an Article 5 contingency – Article 5 of the NATO charter pledges allies to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. If Ukraine would join NATO now, all NATO states would be obliged to defend it and so fight the war with Russia with actual boots on the ground. This is what Ukraine wants but it is not in the interest of many NATO states that prefer peace and diplomacy as well as to keep good relationships and trading with Russia.
Under NATO rules, new members can only be admitted if all (32) members agree. Even if one disagrees, Ukraine would be rejected. Hungary and Slovakia could prove to be a problem for Ukraine's membership bid (they have a long-running dispute about the rights of their minorities in Ukraine). Since the Alliance operates on consensus, it is highly unlikely that all states would extend a security guarantee to Ukraine by a willingness to use military force to defend Ukraine, including against Russia. The costs of accepting Ukraine outweigh the benefits[+][+]. There are even less problematic countries[+] than Ukraine that are not admitted to join NATO, like Sweden, Cyprus, Georgia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Rising NATO's divisions9 and even military attacks on each other[+][+] are a further testament to NATO members’ inability to agree among themselves to admit any new members, especially problematic ones such as Ukraine.
Nevertheless, in the case of Ukraine, all NATO states may be coerced by the US in one way or another to consent. This much is clear for now, NATO has not even issued Ukraine a formal invitation to join[+] and not even a time frame for it, despite all that Ukraine sacrificed in NATO's proxy war against Russia. As Zelensky moaned[+] about it, “it’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine's membership”. He said it himself that “it seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance”.
So far, in the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration[+], NATO has only “welcomed Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO”. Welcoming their aspirations is not nearly the same as a formal invitation to join.
The US-led military bloc NATO will continue to concede to this Russian demand because they fear Russia! Why else haven't they since 2008 accepted Ukraine’s and Georgia’s intention to join the Alliance, despite NATO’s so-called “open-door policy”? Even though Ukraine doesn't fulfill all the criteria, the most common argument from top NATO leaders has been about not wanting to upset Russia[+][+]. But why, if they claim they are superior to Russia and that Russia is a weakling (weaker even than Ukraine[»])? Ukraine has now a more experienced and equipped army than any NATO state, which would be a great asset to NATO, still, they do not accept it into their ranks, despite all the pleas from Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials.
This is because if Ukraine were a NATO member, the alliance would be obligated to defend it against Russia with its troops on the ground. But NATO doesn't want to confront Russia for the obvious reason that NATO can't beat Russia. This is ever more obvious with the fact that NATO's arsenals are depleted[+][+][+][+][+][+] and its shortage of manpower[+][+][+][+][+][+]. There would be no use of NATO troops on the ground as NATO does not have enough equipment and ammunition for them to use. If the West would find means to invest in increasing production capacity, this would take years.
NATO leaders use an excuse that they are trying to prevent escalation, which could lead to nuclear war. Russia has warned (rather than threatened) NATO that it would resort to nuclear weapons if NATO troops would attack Russia. This warning was about attacks on Russian soil but not Ukrainian, so NATO troops could have helped Ukraine, especially before September 2022 when Russia annexed four Ukrainian regions.
Also, if NATO could have attacked Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction, then there is no reason why shouldn't they do the same with Russia, unless they fear Russia.
Ukrainian obsession with NATO is, like every other type of obsession[+] or fixation, an irrational, unhealthy, and compulsive or involuntary preoccupation or the state of being besieged, which needs to be cured. From the Russians’ point of view, the level of Ukrainians’ indoctrination with NATO propaganda is so immense that it is futile to try to deprogram or rehabilitate them, which is why they felt they needed to resort to a military solution (a shock therapy), as it concerns Russia's security.
After Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine in January 2025, the loss of American funding revealed that the US and other NATO states have been funding most of the media outlets in Ukraine[+][+][+]. “Nearly 90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to USAID[+] grants.”[+] – Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information (IMI) from Ukraine. In other words, Ukrainians have been fed with NATO-sponsored information, so no wonder they turned into NATO-supporters and Russophobes.
Unfortunately, Kyiv regime consisting of a former clown and show-biz guys is oblivious to the fact that NATO could not win a war with Russia, as explained in this article[+]. In summary, NATO is positioning itself as Ukraine’s and Europe’s defender and security guarantor, yet lacks the industrial capacity to sustain peer-to-peer warfighting, is unable to match Russian military capacity and to defend against Russian strategic ballistic bombardment, plus lacks the capacity to think and act strategically. If NATO was defeated by the Taliban, a rag-tag group of poorly armed insurgents, then surely Kyiv authorities should have comprehended that it is no match for one of the world's most powerful Russian Army and a nuclear superpower but clowns and peasants of Ukraine did not have the intellectual capacity to consider all that before siding with NATO and antagonizing their kin neighbors.
No major NATO nation is industrially capable for war, as evidenced by the fact that Russia is still outproducing NATO on 155mm ammunition for Ukraine. Also, NATO can’t mobilize at the speed or scale needed to produce the levels of equipment, ammunition, and people to match Russia. Furthermore, Ukrainian airports, sea ports, training, and logistics bases as well as arms factory, naval, army and air force bases, along with energy infrastructure should have been expected to be exposed to Russian ballistic and hypersonic missile attacks, against which NATO has extremely limited defenses. Ukrainian military strategists (if there are any) should have calculated that those losses would not only degrade military production but also bring accelerating economic hardship to both Ukrainian and NATO citizens, as soaring prices and energy shortages accompanying an outbreak of war logically rapidly escalate the political pressure to settle. The follow-on economic shock-waves could have been expected to rapidly ripple across a European continent, undermining the support for Ukraine.
And what about NATO's obsession to lure Ukraine into joining the alliance? Any Russophobic country may apply to join NATO but why should NATO accept a problematic country like Ukraine? What brings Ukraine's entry into NATO? Does it promote peace or not? Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked these questions and answered[»]: “It wouldn’t promote peace. Bringing Ukraine into NATO is a provocation in the eyes of Russia. Ukraine should get the status of a neutral country.”
Without Crimea, where NATO wanted to take over the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, Ukraine is not as attractive, although as Russia's neighbor, it is always going to be attractive to place NATO's military bases across Russia's border to contain Russia.
Some experts claim[+] that NATO's offer to Ukraine to join is coaxed by a Western carrot-on-a-stick syndrome[ꚛ]. Carrot on a stick is a phrase that refers to a policy of offering a reward for making progress toward a goal but not necessarily ever actually delivering. Ukraine is supposed to be a donkey with the NATO chief holding a long stick to which a carrot had been tied, dangling the carrot in front of the donkey but just out of its reach. As the donkey moves forward to get the carrot, it pulls the cart. A carrot looks tasty to a donkey.
Concerning the ever-growing, ever-lasting sacrifices Ukraine is expected to make, NATO has upgraded the carrot into a lollipop, so to speak, sugarcoating that “carrot” with some sweet promises and security guarantees. Even so, only dumb fools may fall for NATO leaders' bluff for so many years. They’ve been dangling that carrot since 2008[+] (when Ukraine applied to join) but 17 years later, they still haven't admitted Ukraine and have not even formally invited it to join[+] (as was expected in the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius). NATO could never admit a problematic country like Ukraine but its chief is constantly[»]giving false hopes (“Ukraine's path to NATO is irreversible”) only to encourage Ukrainians to be their pawns, to keep on making gigantic sacrifices to fight in NATO's proxy war[+][*] against Russia. NATO is only using Ukrainians to die for NATO's cause to weaken and contain its foe Russia. Western countries use the prospect of NATO membership also as a way to control Ukraine’s domestic politics.
French President Macron said the EU must send a "strong signal" of support for Ukraine but ruled out the possibility for the country to join the bloc any time soon[+]. So, the false promise is just some signal, like dangling a carrot on a stick. This was even confirmed by NATO's new chief Rutte in February 2025, when he said[+] that Ukraine was never promised NATO membership (if it forged a peace deal with Russia). However, at the same time US President Trump said[»] “The war in Ukraine began because Biden promised Ukraine NATO membership.”
Another carrot-on-a-stick case in point came from the German Ambassador in Ukraine, Anka Feldhusen, as she said in April 2023[+]: “It seems to me that one day, after the victory, Ukraine can simply say: ‘We’re ready. We can join NATO tomorrow.” In other words, she was saying it will never happen because everyone in their clear mind knows that there can never be Ukraine's victory. As NYT article[+] “NATO Wants to Show Support for Ukraine but Only So Much” reported Germany, as well as the US, Hungary and many other NATO member states, is against inviting Ukraine into NATO. Again, at the 75th anniversary of NATO in April 2024, Ukraine did not even receive a formal invitation to join NATO, just some vague promises. NATO message in a nutshell: “We are not ready, just don’t tell Putin.”😊
Similarly, when asked about Ukraine joining the alliance, NATO chief (and a member of the Bilderberg Group[+]) Stoltenberg said in May 2023: “If Ukraine doesn’t prevail, then there is no issue to discuss at all”. In simple words, NATO officials said that Ukraine can only join NATO if it defeats Russia! In other words, never.
Klaus Schwab admitted[»] that it is not possible to accept Ukraine into NATO.
US high officials admitted[»] that they and US diplomats lie all the time and lied about offering Ukraine NATO membership. Nevertheless, not willing to face the reality, delusional Kyiv regime keeps insisting on that NATO narrative.
So far, it remains clear that Ukraine’s Western partners are not willing to make any legally binding guarantees to Ukraine about NATO membership. Anything short of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause is an insufficient deterrent down the line. A Ukrainian victory could remove any barriers to joining NATO but this is out of the question. Even in the best-case scenario for Ukraine at this point – if Ukraine is stuck in a stalemate, NATO membership isn't gonna happen[+]. Nevertheless, NATO leaders keep on giving false hopes to Ukraine just to make it keep on fighting Russia so that NATO doesn't have to.
It is worth keeping in mind that the people who are giving Assurances & Guarantees[+] to Ukraine, are the same ones that, back in 1990, gave Assurances & Guarantees[+pg.6] to Gorbachev about "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east"[+]. And naïve Ukrainians trust those who evidently do not keep their word. But it is all part of karma and the universal law of reciprocity as back in 2014 the people who went to become the new Kyiv regime and their NATO backers also gave even written and signed security Assurances & Guarantees[+] to then-President Yanukovych to ensure that fair and democratic elections will take place within several months. Right the next day they broke all promises and forcefully ousted Yanukovych. Just as they broke all treaties[*] they had with Russia. No wonder they reap what they sow.
NATO chief Stoltenberg with Ukrainian president Poroshenko (2014-2019) in 2017
The West made a mistake by promising Ukraine NATO membership, said the EU foreign policy chief (and Bilderberg Group[+]member) “gardener”[»] Josep Borrell in an interview with LCI TV channel in March 2022[+][+][»][+]: “We proposed things that we could not guarantee, in particular Ukraine's accession to NATO. This was never realized. I think it was a mistake to make promises that we could not fulfill.”
The Guardian: Ignoring Russia’s fears about NATO expansion was a mistake
Before they can join NATO, countries must first meet certain economic, political, and military standards. Ukraine may have met military standards but is far from meeting economic and political ones. It is far from fulfilling these membership criteria, such as the problems with Ukraine's democratic institutions and anti-corruption processes.
NATO membership for Ukraine should be off the table at least until territorial disputes are resolved but recurring reassurance by the NATO chief and other NATO authorities of Ukraine's imminent membership raises doubts about NATO's possible breach of its own rules. NATO's extreme support and funding of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Jens Stoltenberg's constant public outings on “Ukraine's rightful place in NATO”[»] and “all NATO allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a NATO member”[»][+][+][!] justify Putin’s fears of NATO’s violation of not just an old promise to Russian leaders about not expanding one inch eastwards[+pg.6] but also of its own Treaty10.
For all intents and purposes, Ukraine is already in effect a member of the Western military alliance. Zelensky said, “De facto, we have already completed our path to NATO. De facto, we have already proven interoperability with the alliance’s standards. Ukraine is applying to make it de jure.”
Speaker of Ukrainian parliament Stefanchuk openly admitted[»] the truth “We are NATO's army” and that NATO is using Ukraine to fight Russia.
Indeed, regardless of all of Ukraine's inadequacies to join NATO, it is already a de facto member of the NATO alliance. This is confirmed by various sources, such as President Zelensky[+], and Ukraine defense minister Oleksii Reznikov[+], which justifies this Russian demand.
Ukraine is made into a de facto a NATO member as it has hosted m oreNATO military exercises than most other NATO countries, although officially it is not a NATO member at all and because the Armed Forces of Ukraine participated in the NATO's wars such as Iraq War (2003 to 2008)[+][+] and Afghanistan War (2001-2014, the ISAF mission)[+], as former CIA analyst Larry Johnson explains here[+][»][+]. The process of making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO started in March 1992, a few months after Ukraine left the Soviet Union (August 2021), when Ukraine joined the NATO’s Cooperation Council (NACC) in 1992, and in 1995, Ukraine has become a de facto member of NATO by hosting its first NATO military exercise, though 1994 marked the first year that Ukrainian forces participated twice in NATO exercises that were held in Poland and the Netherlands.
Under controversial, highly-corrupt, and scandalous[+] pro-EU[+] President Kuchma (July 1994 –January 2005), who was the first to officially raise the possibility of membership of the alliance, Ukraine hosted its first NATO military exercise in 1995, called “Peace Shield” under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and took place at the Yavoriv training site near Lviv in western Ukraine, which NATO began using as a military base. Since then, every year, Ukraine hosted dozens of NATO military exercises[+][+][+]. “Peace Shield” was then designated[+] as “Rapid Trident” (trident[+], a three-pronged spear, is the Ukrainian coat of arms[+]) since 2005, after Kuchma steeped down and the US installed its puppet Yushchenko as President in 2005 by orchestrating and funding the Orange revolution. As if Ukraine has not been part of Europe, under the pretense of it being “an important step toward Ukraine’s European integration”[+], in July 2005[+], Ukraine has started hosting the American-funded "Rapid Trident"[+] series of military exercises every year[2013-2021][2010][2011][2012], most notably since the US and NATO reinstalled their puppets in Ukrainian government again through a yet another revolution (because the first revolutionary US-puppet government failed to hold on to power) – yet another regime change operation orchestrated by NATO. No wonder that in early March 2022, Russia hit Yavarov with hypersonic missiles and killed a bunch of foreign military personnel. Furthermore, in July 1998, NATO’s annual “Sea Breeze”, and in June-July 2000, Cooperative Partner-2000[+], large naval, air, and amphibious exercises had been hosted by Ukraine in the Black Sea.
So, Ukraine has hosted more military exercises than 22 other NATO countries, Ukraine. Think about that. How in God's name is Ukraine one of the major hosts for NATO exercises when it's not a member of NATO? In 1999, despite their promises[+pg.6] to Gorbachev in 1990 "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east"[+], NATO indeed expanded to the East by luring the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into it, and then in 2004, also Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, in 2009, Albania and Croatia, in 2017 Montenegro and in 2020 North Macedonia. None of these countries were threatened by Russia by any means, so the only reason why they joined anti-Russian NATO military alliance was because NATO has bribed their corrupt politicians and media representatives into creating Russophobia. The Russian army was not increasing in size, it was diminishing in size. From 1991 to 2011, the Russian military decreased in size by 2/3 – it went from 3,5 million to 1,3 reserves, which clearly indicates they had no intent to attack any country or to supposedly “recreate the Soviet Union or Russian empire”. Rather it is the other way around – Russia is not the country with 700 plus military bases scattered around the world; it is the US! NATO has been increasing and expanding to bolster the US military industrial complex with its greedy war profiteers as well as to secure the US hegemony in the world. In the 1990s, the US defense budget was under $300 billion a year[+], and now it has tripled to a trillion, filling the pockets of the US arm manufacturers and dealers whose major stock shares are held by the US politicians! It is in their self-enrichment interest to expand NATO and have forever wars! No one ever has threatened to attack the US but their so-called defense budget is rapidly growing – explain that! The scam is to sell the weapons to all these new and old NATO partners, who need to buy US weapons to adjust to NATO standards and ensure “interoperability”[+][+] as well as an enemy to fear, thus Russophobia was boosted with fake narratives both through media and history revisionism. No one was allowed to know that Russian military was actually shrinking because they would lose the plot and huge profits.
Russians are not concerned about the difference between de facto and de jure status because their main concern is Ukraine's militarization by NATO, which is why it started its SMO[+] to demilitarize Ukraine so as to remove the threat it presents to Russia's security and regional stability. With NATO-backed military bases in Ukraine ever since 2014, when NATO started to provide weapons and training to Ukraine, it is a de facto member of the NATO alliance and de facto a huge threat to Russia. NATO officials have lied when they said they were not planning to deploy military bases in Ukraine because this is exactly what they have been doing since 2014 – providing billions in military aid and training constitutes equivalent to deploying military bases in Ukraine.
NATO membership is not necessary for Ukraine because even without it, NATO is already committed to Ukraine. Alongside more than $200 billion of euros in military humanitarian, and financial aid from NATO member states since 2014, the alliance itself provides huge support to Ukraine, coordinating this bilateral assistance and the delivery of humanitarian and non-lethal aid. All of these weapons flowing into Ukraine mean that, in a way, Ukraine already has a NATO security guarantee without membership. Just like Kosovo.
NATO leaders have been constantly lying to Russian leaders ever since 1990, which is why it is only natural that Russia doesn't trust NATO and is very suspicious of its military expansions. Russian leaders, on the other hand, have never lied to NATO's leaders and never made any attempt to expand or threaten NATO states.
Former Ukraine's President Yushchenko has also lied[+] that “Ukraine's territory will never be used against Russia… Ukraine guarantees that its security policies are not posing any risks to Russia. Ukraine guarantees that not a single soldier of a [military] bloc or another country will be on its territory. This is our choice. This is what Ukraine's constitution says.” In other words, it was against the Ukrainian Constitution to accept foreign military officials, soldiers, and equipment that pose risks to Russia since 2014.
In principle, as long as Russia doesn't receive this demanded guarantee, it has no other choice but to perpetuate the ‘frozen conflict’ in Ukraine. That is to say, there will be no end to the war as long as this demand for “security guarantees” from NATO is not met. There is no point in arguing this matter because there is no way for Russia to back off on it as it sees NATO expansionism[ꚛ][ꚛ][+], its constant threats (with military bases, ballistic missiles, and military exercises across its borders), and their constant attempts at regime change operations in Russia (2011-2013[+], 2017/2018[+], 2019[+], 2021[+]), as an existential threat worth even using nuclear arms for.
To justify this demand, Russia has given many vindications, which we will include here for everyone to understand the Russian point of view and so agree with it.
In December 2021, Putin accused the West11 of “coming with its missiles to our doorstep” as he reiterated demands for no further NATO expansion in Europe[+]. Russia laid out its security demands[+] in draft agreements[+] it offered the US[+]and NATO[+]. These included a NATO commitment not to enlarge the alliance and to deploy no troops or missiles in countries that had joined NATO after May 1997 – much of Eastern Europe, including Poland, Baltic and Balkan countries as well as Finland. In 1947, Finland pledged in writing to remain neutral. Its NATO membership is therefore an unfounded violation of its own signature.
The Western leaders, especially those in Washington and London, have ignored key Russian security concerns over NATO and Ukraine, so with their own allies (such as China), Russians had no other choice but to take the security matter into their own hands by demilitarizing and neutralizing Ukraine as well as doing the same to the West, starting with the US – military activities by their neighbor, Cuba.
The US expressed[+] deep concerns about China increasing its intelligence and military activities in Cuba but disregarded[+] the very same concerns Russia has as the US has been doing the same in Ukraine and the same concerns China has as the US has been doing the same in and around Taiwan – the US has a false sense of entitlement while constantly applying double standards.
Why was it appropriate for the US to approve a $8 billion defense package for Taiwan to “strengthen the deterrence against authoritarianism in the West Pacific”, namely China? Imagine if China or Russia did the same and approved a $8 billion defense package for, say, Hawaii or Alaska opposition who seek independence from the US – would that be okey?
The US should have followed the Golden Rule[+]of not doing to others that which they do not wish to be done to them! The US should have learned from history – the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.[+]
If “Ukraine's path to NATO is irreversible”[+], NATO is on an irreversible path to war and defeat
Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we[*]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment: “Why should Ukraine guarantee that it would not join NATO?” in which we reveal how NATO Broke the Agreements With Russia
we refer to Kyiv as a regime[+] due to its oppressive and repressive policies, corruption, and foul treatment of its ethnic minorities, such as the ethnic Russians, violating their human rights, tyrannizing, and killing them since 2014.
objections[+][+] by Russia — besides bias and double standards, under pretense of working for OSCE, many Ukrainian spies were charged for high treason and espionage for the US. OSCE staffers leaked information about the state of defense of the DPR and LPR to their curators in the West
The US officials and his American wife (who was a member of the ultranationalist Union of Ukrainian Youth since age 14 and worked in the Washington Bureau of Ukrainian Committee of the US Congress and US Treasury) helped him scheme a smear campaign against the President Ynukovych and the Orange revolution in 2004/2005 to force a third round of election, which got him elected
lawfare[+] is the use of law as a warfare or substitute for armed force to accomplish objectives, such as Trump trials, Putin ICC arrest warrants, Georgescu election cancellation, La Pen jail sentence...
E.g., the entire structure of the UAF communication relies on "Starlink" and without it, the military may become paralyzed, as commanders are unable to communicate with their troops who are then unable to move forward. Russian EW managed to disable it.
Consciousness[+] is not mere awareness or wakefulness but a subtle dimension of who we are, which is the primary cause of everything that happens to us; when raised, it is a constructive force that creates everything in our life, helps us make the right decisions as well as come up with the best ideas and solutions. It is a primordial cause and fundamental force or source of creation.
Human consciousness expresses itself in a variety of modes throughout each day (as presented on an arbitrary scale of consciousness[+]), constructive and destructive ones (virtues and flaws), and the approximate average of the values of all these modes each person or a collective or a nation engages in throughout each day, amounts to what we call a level of consciousness. Consciousness Theorem[+], the level of collective consciousness determines the level of collective achievement. In other words, the higher the consciousness level of a nation, the higher its ability to achieve its goals, including peace.
Hungary and Slovakia refuse NATO's orders to supply Ukraine with weapons and funds, the US attacked Germany's infrastructure (Nord Stream), the US shoots down Turkish drones over Syria...
As long as Ukraine is in a military conflict with Russia, according to restrictions enshrined in NATO's founding document – the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO membership is not open to any such state that threatens the security of the North Atlantic area.
![[+]](https://www.virtuology.biz/images/consciousness-scale.png){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/History_of_NATO_enlargement_animation.gif){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg/1024px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.png){kind=link}
Hope Russia takes Ukraine on a permanent basis